Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#242

You’re just saying that the law was bad. Fine. But the law must be enforced until it is changed, otherwise you live in anarchy, or sanctuary cities.

You are talking about civil disobedience. Thats not the same as cops not enforcing the law! Good grief, there are so many apples and oranges in this thread its nuts


#243

Ergo: “Breaking the law”. Who is in the wrong? Me for breaking the law, or anyone who tries to enforce this law on me?


#244

Technically you are for breaking the law, but in reality civil disobedience is a long recognized form of protest and if you are willing to accept the consequences then go right ahead. But in the context of this thread, Immigration, exactly what law is so bad that you are willing to go to jail to fight it? Are you saying that we should NOT prevent illegals from crossing? Are you saying we should NOT deport people who are here illegally? What the hell are you even talking about here.


#245

For exercising something even the 1st amendment says I have a right to?

I’m saying: Cause & effect.

We fixed illegal immigration in the 1950s, lowered it by 95% in fact. Yet we broke the system again in the 1960s.

There is a clear, omnipresent trend, from when we changed the law in 1962, to illegals growing to where it is today.

The law changed, and we got non-compliance as a result. The lawmakers screwed up, and they never owned their mistake.

Kept pretending the problem was “enforcement”, kept giving assurances “This time, we’ll do it for sure”.
Yeah. But no. The problem is human factors. The problem is they made a system too bloody costly, and too darn long, for people to plan & live their lives around.

So you get massive non-compliance. Like a gun control law for “assault weapons” in Massachusetts.


#246

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing in that Amendment that says you can break the law. You’re one of those people who applies “free speech” to every dumb thing. As I said: Technically you are for breaking the law, but in reality civil disobedience is a long recognized form of protest and if you are willing to accept the consequences then go right ahead.


#247

If the law is barring my free exercise of faith? While I’m doing nothing that could possibly harm someone else?


#248

Actually, the 1st Amendment only says that “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” although I would argue that freedom of religion is otherwise constitutionally protected.

Not with you. Wherever a right is defended by the Constitution, a law against it is null and void.

If Hillary were President and had a Democrat Congress and Supreme Court and got a law demanding that everyone turn in their guns in spite of the 2nd Amendment, would you comply?


#249

You keep chopping off the most important part of my posts that answers the question you keep asking!! Jeeezz!

FOR THE THIRD TIME: “Technically you are for breaking the law, but in reality civil disobedience is a long recognized form of protest and if you are willing to accept the consequences then go right ahead.

Thats the third and last time I answer your question. You are using up my limited number of posts.


#250

But, THE “LAW” WAS CHANGED, which is my whole point. Who CARES what happened 80 years ago? The law was changed, and so was the Dredd Scott decision, Plessy and even Prohibition. If the law is bad, then CHANGE it…don’t defy it.


#251

Something doesn’t become “right” simply because you change the rules and make it “legal.” If it’s wrong, it’s ALWAYS wrong. I can halt the “crisis” in opioid use tomorrow by simply declaring opioid use legal and simply burying those who overdose. I can end the rash of burglaries by simply refusing to look at burglary as a “crime.” YOU think you can stop the illegal invasion of our country by simply declaring the invasion “legal.”


#252

What if I declare that your “exercise of your faith” OFFENDS me and demand that that stupid law be enforced?


#253

Yup, bullets first!


#254

You’re in the wrong. You don’t have a right to not be offended. I do have a right to practice my faith.


#255

You keep avoiding the issue. I have a right to break the law, if the law is unjust.

Ergo, I can break these laws, and I’am right to do so.

Because the law itself, broke a higher law. The Law we built this country on.

The law the Constitution was itself built out of.

Any idea of what I’m referring to?


#256

You have the right to go to jail for that, too. That’s how civil disobedience works, by accepting the legal consequences to raise awareness until the law is changed, not avoiding them by hiding the crime.


#257

I can’t discuss this with you. You’re like Democrats who make up rights and laws where they don’t exist and ignore the ones that DO exist. You live in a fantasy world. Have you found any Russian boogeymen under your bed lately?

BINGO! Thank you


#258

You’ve never read John Locke then. You don’t know where “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” even comes from. What Jefferson was paraphrasing.

English Common Law prescribed a tradition of non-interference, something present in the very language of the Constitution.

Our social charter didn’t create rights; it announced that they pre-exist, and that the Government cannot interfere with them.

That’s our heritage, bub.


#259

Nope; that’s just the State compounding its error.


#260

What kind of dope are you smoking man, what planet do you live on! You have no sense of reality. By the way, how’s the weather there in Fantasyland.


#261

You mean inalienable rights, which the DoI speaks of?

Positive and Negative Rights, which are the very terms our legal system speaks of itself in?

Which the Obamacare debates themselves centered around?